General Discussion Topics, page-54844

Ha ha ha . I see where you're going here with your question. And I wasn't trying to elude you as I saw your question late yesterday but was in too much end of day discomfort to reply. And i had already maxed out my posting ability by that stage for sure.

The easiest answer for you would be for me to suggest you go back and find my earlier posts where I gave you some of those numbers.

But then I guess you'd probably turn around then and re ask the question as to Why haven't you changed them then on account of everything that's happening etc....like the $190 capital raise et al.

And the easiest way to explain that is that if you do your early stage valuations and comparisons which is supported by your project analysis across the spectrum of Sayona's assets , then your projections should NOT deviate all that much in the swings and roundabouts.

So using the Quebec pending general elections as your specific example. The answer could be NOT much. And the reasons are that a.) I had already provisioned for various outcomes , scenarios , and modelling in my figure work around the elections. That's why I have mentioned it countless times before anyone had even mentioned it. , and b.) Whatever happens then as a result of electoral promises or funding this way or that way from the elections is already factored into a certain degree of my estimates and can really only be the ' EXTRA ' on top if you like which is always going to be driven by the surrounding sentiment on the SP at whatever time this or that news is broken to the market around that event. In other words it DOESN'T change the core valuation of Sayona and only to the extent it can ' overshoot ' to the upside or downside of those already built in core valuations .

Hope that makes sense.

Same thing can somewhat be applied to the rationale in regards the A$190 million. It really doesn't change the CORE valuation of Sayona's basket of Lithium Projects , it ONLY changes the the profile by de-risking from a financing point of the Investor View and therefore changes the ' Sentiment ' on the stock from an investing point of view which then is reflected in an increase or decrease in valuation as perceived by the Market who is ultimately the Judge and Jury who is evaluating it.

Yes it changes the Accounting interpretation as defined by the strengthening in the Balance Sheet numbers narrative whereby the cash will ultimately decrease over time through investment while the income producing assets are increased and enhanced. But again this is a separate valuation metrics than the outright evaluation of each of the separate projects in deriving an appropriate ' economic ' valuation.

Besides , we all expected $70 - $80 million which I presume was Sayona's share at the time - So that's $100 to $106 million if you count Piedmont , and we ended up getting A$190 million or more than DOUBLE this amount.

So if you then allow for Piedmont's share to come in on top , that's another approximate $45 million in project funding PLUS as has been stated as well of SOQUEM's increased contributions as well.

So the only difference then is reflected in the HOW MUCH MORE we received and can deploy at an inherent implied discount rate and rate of return. But at the same time we always knew we were going to get some additional amount - it's just how much you put into your modelling over and above what they had been eluding to........which counts in maintaining your Valuation expectations as reflected in your SP predictions.

So bottom line is if you are confident in your figure work and what you have allowed , then it will make almost ZERO difference if you remove the Quebec elections and any resulting probabilities on funding or job creation initiative for this sector created by that event. But it does have the potential to ' Overshoot ' based on sentiments. So you have to allow something for that . It's somewhat intangible I know, but you have to allow for it based on comparisons to other sectors as well as experience.

Same thing can apply on the funding as well - in that If you take away the funding ( ie capital raise ) , it simply delays the time-frame expected in getting your SP to reflect its already calculated valuations by asserting and assuming this financing over the top of these ultimate expectations by de-risking and helping to realize the already known or expected valuation.

End result. SP prediction should still remain relatively the same within the parameters of ALL other baked in expectations if you've done on your research and work on those numbers.

So my ultimate answer without having those posted predictions in front of me right now is to direct you back to that post where you will find it.

Short of this , I will definitely have it ready to re-post again when the time comes.....